A quick question about minimum wage

[scoobydoo]

A girl who works with my daughter and is aged 23 was taken on as a letting agent . She was told she was on 6 months probation - so on a salary only ( no commission for lettings)

I have worked out that excluding lunch times she is working 47.5 hours per week and on £13000 per year. That seems like below minimum wage to me.

Also at the end of the 6 months they have told her that although she is fine at her job and through no fault of hers they can not take her off probation as they have not finished training her.So she now has to do another 3 months on probation

If I checked her contract ( if she has one ) and she is below minimum wage - what can be done - that would hopefully not affect her?

[Eloise01]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

There is almost certainly nothing that you can do that will not be traced back or attributed to her, since even an anonymous tip off to the Pay and Right Line (0800 917 2368) will be attributable to her - there's only one of her there! And be careful about interfering - you may easily not be correct. Trainees, apprentices and workers on probation (for example) do not qualify for the NMW. 40 hours a week is very close to £13,000 at the NMW and voluntary overtime, for example. doesn't count either. And she has around 18 months to go before gaining the right to claim unfair dismissal so she is ultimately vulnerable for a very long time.

[scoobydoo]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

Thanks for your reply. I double checked and she is in fact working 52 hours per week (has to work every saturday). But Although I knew about apprentices being exempt I did not realise that probationary periods were relevant. No wonder it hard for young people at the moment. The one good thing is that she is in an area with plenty of employment so at least she has a bit of choice about what she does next.Thanks again.

[Eloise01]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

Obviously if she works those hours she must have signed the opt-out - and that does change matters as those hours cannot be voluntary overtime since signing the opt out is required only for people working over 48 hours per week. However, as you point out, there are other realities at play here, and I think all of this must be down to her decision, much as it pains me to say so. The consequences of rocking the boat is that she will soon be without employment and probably without a reference. If she is genuinely getting training which would enable her to move on in a field where there is employment available, then that may be a trade off she is prepared to accept. To be honest, one way or another, most of us did it! If we wanted to get ahead we worked the hours we had to, took the pay that was going, and there wasn't any national minimum wage or working time regulations for us! That doesn't make it right that employers should do this and get away with it. And all of these things are there for good reason. But sometimes the real world and the world as we would have it are not the same things. There are plenty of 23 year olds who would be happy to have a job, never mind one that is going somewhere. So if she's going to stand up for herself, and risk that, then it has to be solely her decision. Life is just more complex than rules and regulations would have us believe - as we know!

[scoobydoo]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

I think that after the 6 month probation if she had just moved on the officially doing the job that she is already doing she would have accepted the low wage and long hours without question. It is the fact they have extended the probationary period whilst admitting that the fact she is not fully trained - (although they have not specified what the extra training is ) is their own fault and not hers. My daughter who is working there as well has today just been offered a new job on less hours and more money and will be handing her notice in- so perhaps that might be the wake up call they need , but then again as I have told her unfortunately no one is irreplaceable so unfortunately they will probably just carry on the way they are.Also they have ended up paying out quite a large amount for age discrimination in the past and that has not changed their attitude. All lessons in life.

You are right about your comment in not interfering as well. I remember once before when my daughter was dismissed from a job for absolutely no reason ( they had the previous week told her how pleased with her work they were) I stormed round and gave the boss what for and demanded that he explained why he had dismissed her or basically I would make his life very difficult ! . It turned out he was actually illegally diverting , money abroad form the company and needed to make immediate cuts , but before he ran the company dry he did offer her the job back and when she refused because of the way she had been treated she got an absolutely glowing reference which came in very useful. But I know I should not have done what I did as I did not have a legal argument and should have let her fight her own battles - but I just saw red I am afraid.

[PlanB]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

If we wanted to get ahead we worked the hours we had to, took the pay that was going, and there wasn't any national minimum wage or working time regulations for us! That doesn't make it right that employers should do this and get away with it. And all of these things are there for good reason. But sometimes the real world and the world as we would have it are not the same things. There are plenty of 23 year olds who would be happy to have a job, never mind one that is going somewhere.

Just to add to Eloise's point about investing in one's future, this report says that junior barristers could find themselves working for as little as £14 per day when the new legal aid cuts kick in

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/jun...11%2F06%2F2013

[Eloise01]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

Just to add to Eloise's point about investing in one's future this report says that junior barristers could find themselves working for as little as £14 per day when the new legal aid cuts kick in

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/jun...11%2F06%2F2013

Luxury! When I was in pupillage, in the bad old days, I got £35 per week. And that was with a top law firm! However, reading that, I am so glad that employment law was my first choice career - my second one was criminal law and at those rates I'd still be working! Out of my £35 per week I had to pay rent, all my bills, books and my own court clothes. Luckily I didn't have any time for a social life because I couldn't have afforded one! That is the reason why there are so few working class barristers from my generation - parents couldn't subsidise the training to the degree necessary. Had it not been for my very favourite trades union, I could never have been called to the bar. They subsidised what my parents could not to enable me to get through it.

However, this does confirm what I suggested some weeks ago on the site - many law students will vote with their feet and specialise in non-legal aid areas of work. Who would study for at least five years in a highly competitive and cut-throat environment to be paid £14 a day?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

However, this does confirm what I suggested some weeks ago on the site - many law students will vote with their feet and specialise in non-legal aid areas of work. Who would study for at least five years in a highly competitive and cut-throat environment to be paid £14 a day?

Indeed, they will want to join Magic Circ£e £aw firm$ in$tead...

[CleverClogs]

Re: A quick question about minimum wage

Luxury! When I was in pupillage, in the bad old days, I got £35 per week. And that was with a top law firm!